MPs criticise Chris Grayling over rail plans
‘The Department for Transport and the Secretary of State need to engage with us properly,’ said Lilian Greenwood, chair of the Transport Committee
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The transport secretary and his department have been criticised by the Transport Select Committee for their “apparent unwillingness” to engage on rail investment.
The cross-party MPs accused Chris Grayling and the Department for Transport of failing to appreciate the role of the committee and to engage with it.
The committee has published the government’s response to its latest report on infrastructure investment.
The committee chair, Labour’s Lilian Greenwood, said: “It has nothing to say on the long-term cost-effectiveness and wider sustainability benefits of railway electrification.
“It provides very little detail on how it plans to implement emerging traction technologies such as battery and hydrogen power.”
The committee’s most serious concerns are over how the government evaluates transport investments. Ms Greenwood says the response “gives no sense that the government intends to address biases against regions that have not received their fair share of investment for decades”.
London and the South East benefit from far more rail investment than the rest of the country.
An industry insider said: “The trouble is, under the present narrowly focused benefit-cost analysis, almost any scheme in and around London will score higher than the regions.”
The Department for Transport told the committee that its appraisal methods “are based on robust and evidence based processes that shows the value for money of different investment options”.
It insisted: “There are a number of aspects of our appraisal system which act against concentrating investment in areas of high economic performance.”
Three electrification schemes – on the northern section of the Midland Mainline, between Cardiff and Swansea, and between Oxenholme and Windermere – were axed last year.
The committee recommended that they are recategorised as “pending”. But the Department for Transport said: “In the case of the Midland Mainline, Great Western Mainline and Lakes Line electrification schemes, the passenger benefits are being provided through other means.”
Ms Greenwood concluded: “These responses are disappointing in several respects, particularly the Department for Transport’s apparent unwillingness to engage with some of our key conclusions and recommendations.”
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments